Retry post CSV import

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, idempotency, or whether it mutates state. For a re-run operation, this is insufficient – an agent cannot know if it will overwrite existing data or if it's safe to call repeatedly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and gets straight to the point, though it omits essential context. The efficiency is good, but the lack of detail makes it feel more like a stub than a well-structured description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the expected outcome, error handling, or any prerequisites. An agent would lack confidence in calling this tool correctly, especially given the ambiguity of 'failed rows'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines jobId as a string with no description, and the description doesn't explain it either. However, the term 'import job' implies jobId refers to the CSV import job identifier, which is somewhat inferable. Still, the description adds no explicit meaning beyond what the name suggests, so it barely meets the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action: re-running failed rows of an import job. The verb 're-run' and resource 'import job's failed rows' are precise, and the name retry_post_csv_import distinguishes it from retry_post and retry_comment, which target individual posts/comments. The intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like retry_post or retry_comment. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that this is for CSV import jobs from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.